Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beri Smither

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beri Smither (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New PROD was declined after previously being PRODed in 2006. Rationale was “ Inadequately sourced since creation in 2006. No indication individual passes WP:GNG.” TonyBallioni (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsurprisingly. I WP:IAR accepted the recent prod on this—this is a BLP that's been unsourced for fourteen years (the single alleged "source" is just a link to a long-dead user-generated site)—but the deletion was overturned so here we are. The number of Google hits is deceptive; as far as I can ascertain there's nothing that's actually about her, just "and Beri Smither was also there" type mentions on coverage of other people. ‑ Iridescent 11:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. TB beat me too it. A shame about the process-for-process-sakism of course. Even if anyone wanted to source this (and there doesn't seem to be any urgency about that), there is a complete dearth of coverage of the subject in third-party, independent reliable sources, in either the literature ([1],[2]) or news outlets ([3],[4]) which ranges from zero at worse to passing, WP:MILL-type, diectory mentions. This is the only thing that appears to have been written on them: Perfect People, unsurprisingly, is not a good source. Fails to meet the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SN54129 12:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hardly notable. Bkatcher (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the initial prod I started (without realizing it had been prod'd before). Loksmythe (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It just might (maybe sorta) have been WP:TOOSOON when it was created but the decade+ that has passed since then shows that it does not meet WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 05:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That such a sub-standard article has survived for 14 years is a reflection on our very poor oversight here at Wikipedia. Not quite as bad as the 16 years of the article on Barahir, but not much better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Everything seems to check out. The subject was clearly a top-tier model during the 1990s, being featured on the cover of all the major fashion magazines and so passes WP:NMODEL. The TV show didn't last but her role in that checks out too. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.